Explain consciousness to the layman.

[yy2bggggs]

How can a new symbol be produced? I can see how symbols already in the system can be aggregated and duplicated.

New symbol simply means I'm not replacing the two existing symbols in this case. It's just for discussion--same reason when speaking of tokens that I had the 2's being drawn using different colors of chalk.

ETA: That's not to say a new symbol cannot be produced either. It can. It's just not what I meant.

To produce a new symbol, you just cause one of the configurations you're calling a symbol to appear in some sort of medium. That requires some place to write it, but you can literally cause something that is not a symbol to become one.

 

[rocketdodger]

Any physical system has an effectively infinite number of states. We tend to focus on particular states because they are of more interest to us, but they are not privileged in any objective way.

This isn't true.

States can be "privileged" in any objective way, all that is needed is an objective metric to measure them with.

For instance, it is certainly valid to say one state has a higher potential energy than another, or that one state leads to a given attractor state while another doesn't, etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

God forbid, on a thread called "Explain Consciousness to the Layman", that anyone should ask "How does consciousness arise?"

The only reason that question sounds "vague" to you is that your way of viewing the workings of the brain simply doesn't account very well for consciousness... if at all.

No piggy.

The reason the question sounds "vague" to me is because I am intelligent enough to recognize that it is vague.

First of all -- what consciousness? Human? That is a good assumption, but then when I ask questions like "what else do you think is conscious? " people list things from dolphins and apes to things like squirrels, and some people even group birds in there.

Do you really think a squirrel is conscious in the same ways as a human? Perhaps, perhaps not -- it depends on what aspect of human consciousness people are thinking of.

Then I can ask the question of what age people think a human becomes "conscious." What do you think? I think it is probably somewhere around 2-4, maybe later. Isn't knowing that requisite to being able to interpret the question "how does consciousness arise?" If someone considers humans to be "born conscious" then obviously that individual and myself need to hash some stuff out regarding what human consciousness even entails before we can even begin a discussion on how it arises.

After that we get into the realm of humans with brain abnormalities, and I know you have brought that up many times. Are all waking humans that can respond to conversational input conscious? Even if they potentially lack certain mental processes that we have? Maybe, maybe not -- it depends on what aspect of consciousness people are thinking of.

Not a vague question -- gimme a break. It is about as vague as it gets.

 

[rocketdodger]

Exactly.

The magic defies Einstein, but hey, if we don't complain about his arbitrarily high elevator, I hope he won't complain about this.

Good, then let's continue with the exercise.

We already established that translating the sphere containing your head preserved your conscious experience.

Lets put the sphere back where it was, so we can start fresh.

Now I want to translate every single particle a different distance, so that they are effectively spatially isolated from each other.

An easy way to do that is to simply go from one side of the space to the other, in all 3 dimensions, and move the first particle something like 1000 light years * the length of the space in that dimension, and the last particle no distance at all. Meaning, we would "stretch" the spaces between the particles so the whole set now takes up a rectangular prism thousands of light years across rather than just tens of meters across ( for a room ) or miles across ( if you were thinking of an outdoor space ).

Since the transformation we are doing now is simply a large translation, it shouldn't be any more difficult for the machine to handle the patching up than it was before. The only difference is that now every particle is isolated from every other particle and every single interaction between particles in the entire space has to go through the magical transformation process that the machine accomplishes.

Assuming the machine does its magic, do you agree that your consciousness is preserved?

Note that all the particles are still as "physical" as they were before, in fact they are the same particles, it just so happens that now they are very far from each other ( although they don't know it ).

 

[Leumas]

Hey PixyMisa,

Why have you not responded to the post below?

The first statement is untrue and has been untrue for over a decade. The internet, considered as a system, is vastly more complex than the human brain at this point.

There you go again with unsubstantiated assertions. Do you have a reference to this from a COMPETENT source?

Also.....even if I grant you that.... why isn't the internet CONSCIOUS yet? Or is it?.....and if you assert that it is.... then who is the one with the Pixy Dust in his brain now?

I suspect you’re watching way too many science fiction movies.

 

[westprog]

Hey PixyMisa,

Why have you not responded to the post below?

Pixy already thinks his central heating controller is conscious, so I expect he'd have no problem with the internet.

Sorry, that should read "knows". "Thinks" implies there might be a smidgeon of doubt.

 

[Belz...]

Hey PixyMisa,

Why have you not responded to the post below?

Is complexity the only requirement for consciousness ?

 

[Leumas]

No one takes the time to read in these threads. The important thing is to respond to each and every point anyone makes as quickly as you can. By the time anyone spots any self-contradictory elements or non-sequiters, the thread'll already be three pages down the road and still picking up steam.

Is that like when I spotted your silly error and politely took the time to educate you about the subject you obviously knew nothing about but were trying to pontificate upon regardless?

I could have taken the opportunity to maliciously pounce upon you with some snidely and condescending remarks disparaging your naiveté and hubris and left it at that – just like you are fond of doing.

But instead I spent the time and effort to write a lengthy post to contribute some value to you so that you would learn about the subject. Just like I have done throughout this thread by contributing video links and PDF files and even a whole working program listing among other information about other fields of engineering.

I even spent the time and effort to create three wav files for you to hear how computer slowed down music sounds.

Please look at what some of the people you are constantly and pompously disparaging have contributed to this thread and then compare it to what you have contributed. I think you might be humbled into proceeding with a bit more humility in the future.

 

[Leumas]

Is complexity the only requirement for consciousness ?

Why are you asking me .... I am not the one who made that assertion.... it was PixyMisa…. Or at least he seems to imply it by mistakenly claiming that the internet is more complex than the human brain…..in fact I have no idea what he is claiming by his unsubstantiated assertion….. so address the question to him.

I personally have already stated my OPINIONS on the matter in various posts....go read them.

 

[Leumas]

Pixy already thinks his central heating controller is conscious, so I expect he'd have no problem with the internet.

Sorry, that should read "knows". "Thinks" implies there might be a smidgeon of doubt.

 

[Piggy]

That doesn't mean you should speculate that the impossible is possible, or that the illogical is logical. And yet, that is what you are doing.

Forgive me if I don't consult you about what is and isn't logical, since your entire view on consciousness depends on the impossible being possible.

 

[Piggy]

No piggy.

The reason the question sounds "vague" to me is because I am intelligent enough to recognize that it is vague.

First of all -- what consciousness? Human? That is a good assumption, but then when I ask questions like "what else do you think is conscious? " people list things from dolphins and apes to things like squirrels, and some people even group birds in there.

Do you really think a squirrel is conscious in the same ways as a human? Perhaps, perhaps not -- it depends on what aspect of human consciousness people are thinking of.

You might not have as much problem with people's replies if you didn't turn around and accuse them of saying something they never said.

I've been on the receiving end of this treatment from you before, in fact.

Yeah, I think probably at least all birds and mammals are conscious.

That doesn't mean that they have experiences similar to ours. So far, we reckon only gorillas and cimpanzees are highly likely (or very certain) to have something like our experience with its illusions of self, future, and past.

Then I can ask the question of what age people think a human becomes "conscious." What do you think? I think it is probably somewhere around 2-4, maybe later. Isn't knowing that requisite to being able to interpret the question "how does consciousness arise?" If someone considers humans to be "born conscious" then obviously that individual and myself need to hash some stuff out regarding what human consciousness even entails before we can even begin a discussion on how it arises.

You know, you might notice that none of this makes the current functional definition of consciousness "vague" or difficult to work with.

All you're doing is listing some of the questions that brain research is currently exploring by using a workable definition of consciousness that apparently does not seem as vague to neurobiologists as it does to you.

In any case, self-awareness appears around 18-22 months in humans, and although it's difficult to measure what's going on in the depths of a newborn's brain, there's every reason to believe that a human infant would require core consciousness in order to behave normally.

After that we get into the realm of humans with brain abnormalities, and I know you have brought that up many times. Are all waking humans that can respond to conversational input conscious? Even if they potentially lack certain mental processes that we have? Maybe, maybe not -- it depends on what aspect of consciousness people are thinking of.

Not a vague question -- gimme a break. It is about as vague as it gets.

You claim that this is somehow vague, and yet you are able to formulate the same crisp questions that neurobiologists are also asking by using this definition.

The issue of the limits of non-conscious activity in humans is the subject of a broad array of research.

It's a good thing you're not the czar of new and interesting research on this planet... hard to see how anything would ever get looked into.

 

[Piggy]

Good, then let's continue with the exercise.

We already established that translating the sphere containing your head preserved your conscious experience.

Lets put the sphere back where it was, so we can start fresh.

Now I want to translate every single particle a different distance, so that they are effectively spatially isolated from each other.

An easy way to do that is to simply go from one side of the space to the other, in all 3 dimensions, and move the first particle something like 1000 light years * the length of the space in that dimension, and the last particle no distance at all. Meaning, we would "stretch" the spaces between the particles so the whole set now takes up a rectangular prism thousands of light years across rather than just tens of meters across ( for a room ) or miles across ( if you were thinking of an outdoor space ).

Since the transformation we are doing now is simply a large translation, it shouldn't be any more difficult for the machine to handle the patching up than it was before. The only difference is that now every particle is isolated from every other particle and every single interaction between particles in the entire space has to go through the magical transformation process that the machine accomplishes.

Assuming the machine does its magic, do you agree that your consciousness is preserved?

Note that all the particles are still as "physical" as they were before, in fact they are the same particles, it just so happens that now they are very far from each other ( although they don't know it ).

No, I don't agree that the resulting set of particles is conscious.

What if we had a magic machine that did that to your entire body?

What could your body do that it did before?

Sawing a woman in half is one thing, if you invoke magic to keep each half from dying. She can still kick and wave and smile.

Blowing her to smithereens and spreading her across the galaxy is another kettle of fish entirely, magic or no.

So far, your thought experiment is simply asking, "Can the brain be conscious if the head it's in isn't attached to a body?" (yes, as long as the head stays alive somehow) and "Can the brain be conscious if we blow it to bits?" (no, even if those bits are somehow still performing the same dance moves they were before they got spread out across the galaxy).

Even with the magic to make the particles bounce separately the way they would be bouncing if they were in a brain, dude, you can't atomize a brain and expect it to work.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hey PixyMisa,

Why have you not responded to the post below?

Because it's obnoxious drivel and I have a life.

If you want to see just how far the internet overshadows the human brain, look up the numbers for a typical modern computer and the number of computers on the internet.

 

[Piggy]

Hey, PixieMisa, I've got a question. Not a leading question, but a real one I just want to know the answer to.

The electrical hum from the neurons in your head, how weak is that and how does it interact w/ electrical fields around us? What sort of voltage are we looking at and how would that compare w/ obvious benchmarks? And how would that buzz respond, if at all, to interaction w/ stuff in the everyday world?

 

[Piggy]

I don't agree with rocketdodger about vagueness, but it's true, we haven't cleared it up as much as we could, so here's one way of looking at consciousness as it relates to brain activity....

You can plot different modes of consciousness according to how much neural activity is going on, how much of that activity is involved with impulses from the body's senses, and how disperse or clustered it is:

Activity -- High or Low levels of neural firing
Focus -- Inward or Outward, depending on level of sensory involvement
Concentration -- Neural activity is Diffuse or Clustered

When you're sound asleep, you've got low activity, inward focus, and diffuse concentration.

In REM sleep, you're just as inwardly focused, but activity is very high (like when you're paying attention to a task), and concentration is moderate (like when you're relaxing and watching a sunset).

When you're very drowsy, say like when you're falling asleep, all 3 modes are a bump up from deep sleep.

If you're relaxed and letting your mind drift, you're kind of in the middle of concentration and focus, but with fairly low neural activity.

If you're observing something but still not really thinking about it or anything else, you get more outward focus and concentration, but not much more neural activity.

If you start to casually daydream about some scenario, the focus moves inward, activity goes up.

If you're relaxed and alert, the activity goes up, and you're about in the middle in terms of focus and concentration.

Some friend stop by and you're socializing, the focus is more external and there's more concentration.

At the highest end of activity and concentration are two states that vary by focus.

The focus is outward when you're attending to a task, and inward during high introspection such as doing math in your head.

So that's one way to think about different modes of consciousness in terms of brain activity.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hey, PixieMisa, I've got a question. Not a leading question, but a real one I just want to know the answer to.

The electrical hum from the neurons in your head, how weak is that and how does it interact w/ electrical fields around us? What sort of voltage are we looking at and how would that compare w/ obvious benchmarks? And how would that buzz respond, if at all, to interaction w/ stuff in the everyday world?

Sure, keeping in mind that I'm not a neurologist or biophysicist!

There are two factors here: The strength of the EM field produced by neurons, and their sensitivity to EM fields.

First point to be made is that neural activity definitely does produce an EM field and neurons definitely do respond to EM fields, so the problem relates to relative field strengths, not a basic error of fact.

A good place to start is to compare EEG^WP and MEG with TMS. The first two sense brain waves; the last alters them with magnetic fields.

From the former article:

A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV in amplitude when measured from the scalp and is about 10–20 mV when measured from subdural electrodes.

These fields generally oscillate in the range of a few tens of hertz, similar to household wiring. However, even when measured within the brain itself, the voltage is on the order of 10,000 times lower than domestic AC.

Field strength falls off with the square of distance. This means any live electric circuit within 100 times the width of your brain will have a similar effect on you as your brain's own electrical fields, and anything closer will be proportionally stronger.

Just sitting around at home - and ignoring high-voltage devices and electromagnets - your brain is constantly exposed to electric fields of similar frequency ranges to the ones it produces and 100 times stronger.

When we compare magnetic fields, the situation becomes even clearer:

Synchronized neuronal currents induce weak magnetic fields. At 10 femtotesla (fT) for cortical activity and 10^3 fT for the human alpha rhythm, the brain's magnetic field is considerably smaller than the ambient magnetic noise in an urban environment, which is on the order of 10^8 fT or 0.1 µT. The essential problem of biomagnetism is thus the weakness of the signal relative to the sensitivity of the detectors, and to the competing environmental noise.

TMS uses electromagnetic induction to generate an electric current across the scalp and skull without physical contact. A plastic-enclosed coil of wire is held next to the skull and when activated, produces a magnetic field oriented orthogonally to the plane of the coil. The magnetic field passes unimpeded through the skin and skull, inducing an oppositely directed current in the brain that activates nearby nerve cells in much the same way as currents applied directly to the cortical surface.[40]

The path of this current is difficult to model because the brain is irregularly shaped and electricity and magnetism are not conducted uniformly throughout its tissues. The magnetic field is about the same strength as an MRI, and the pulse generally reaches no more than 5 centimeters into the brain

An MRI magnet is on the order of 1 Tesla. The brain's alpha rhythm is on the order of 1 picoTesla. (Both measured at the scalp.)

So normal background magnetic noise is about 100,000 times stronger than the brain's own magnetic field, and the field strength required to produce clearly observable effects on neural activity is 10,000,000 times stronger than that.

In all, the field strength required to influence the brain's activity is a trillion times what the brain actually produces.

 

[Leumas]

Because it's obnoxious drivel and I have a life.

If you want to see just how far the internet overshadows the human brain, look up the numbers for a typical modern computer and the number of computers on the internet.

More theistic abject shenanigans..... make up "facts" out of thin air.....when asked for a reference or citations or evidence.....they SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF and ask us to do the work of disproving their pulled out of the arse claims.

Ah.... and do not forget the ad hominems they hurl while they are at it dishing out fallacies by the hordes.


In any case..... here we go

Number of internet users as of Jan 2012 2.3 billion
Number of Neurons in the human brain 100 billion​

Now let's compare the topology of the interconnections.

If you know anything about how internet Nodes are connected you would know that MOST of the 2.3 billion count of users are directly connected with ONE connection to the ISP server that they subscribe to. In other words the connections to each ISP are of a STAR topology.

There are about 12000 ISPs in the world (see here). An ISP server has only a FEW direct connections to other ISP servers in a GRAPH topology.

So the topology of the internet interconnections are not by any means even an order of magnitude more than the number of nodes. So even if we were to be absurdly generous there might be at most 5 billion direct interconnection between nodes of the internet.

On the other hand EACH neuron has scads of direct interconnections to other neurons in a GRAPH topology. The estimate is about 100 TRILLION direct connections.


So in summary......
Brain

100 Billion neurons with 100 TRILLION interconnections​

Internet

2.3 billion nodes with at most 5 billion interconnections​

So PixyMisa..... which is more complex? Why isn't the internet a conscious entity? Or do you claim it is?

 

[Frank Newgent]

That's pretty much what I was getting to. How can that happen computationally?

How can what happen computationally?

ETA: As a guess, are you talking about how inputs can happen computationally? If so, that's not part of the computational model of the mind, but was discussed earlier in the thread (don't recall who exactly brought it up). The answer is the same--there needs to be input from an external world. It's just that in this case, the external world is computational--they're using a simulation. There's a part of the simulation that refers to another part.

For comparison, there does exist a computational model of the universe, where you consider the entire universe to work like a computer. Under this model, we would be computational in nature, and would be able to refer to things external to us. One slight detail--generally speaking, in the computational model of the universe, we may be speaking of two different systems anyway (specifically, two different sets of symbols--one would simply be produced as a layer on top of another).

Wondering how if the computational encodings only use/borrow representational content that is already available... how this computational "consciousness" deals with what would have to be undefined/unspecified: to be exact, external, "new" representational content?

If (what would be) any undefined/unspecified "new" representational content is but "borrowed" from a computational simulation and not is an actual interaction with an actual external world... still sounds merely circular.

What am I missing?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Wondering how if the computational encodings only use/borrow representational content that is already available... how this computational "consciousness" deals with what would have to be undefined/unspecified: to be exact, external, "new" representational content?

The symbols that are produced by inputs into the entity will tend to produce patterns according to the environment. Those patterns would be detected and identified, and later on, can be characterized.

Or not, but if you build a "simulation" of a world without patterns, it'd be kind of useless. But in that case there wouldn't be much for the entity to do.

If (what would be) any undefined/unspecified "new" representational content is but "borrowed" from a computational simulation and not is an actual interaction with an actual external world... still sounds merely circular.

Why? You have an entity learning about its environment either way, be that a simulated environment or your actual external world. In both cases, the entity is referring to something external to it; and in both cases, the only thing the entity could possibly learn about is things that can be learned or inferred from the things that make patterns in its inputs.